Author: Allen Piscitello 2015-05-26 18:38:08
Published on: 2015-05-26T18:38:08+00:00
In a discussion on the Bitcoin development mailing list, Danny Thorpe asked what prevents RBF (Replace-by-Fee) from being used for fraudulent payment reversals. He suggested that someone could pay 1BTC to Alice for hard goods, then after receiving them, broadcast a double spend of that transaction to pay Alice nothing, with the only cost being the higher network fee of the second transaction. Peter Todd responded by comparing the costs of using RBF versus CPFP (Child-Pays-For-Parent) in different scenarios. He found that RBF was significantly cheaper than CPFP for defragmenting outputs, with cost savings ranging from 30% to 90%. In one example, he explained how paying multiple recipients in succession would result in 84% cost savings using RBF rather than creating a new transaction each time. In another example involving dust defragmentation, he found that using RBF resulted in cost savings of 32% to 59%, or even infinite if defragmentation without RBF costs more in additional fees than it saves.
Updated on: 2023-06-09T21:19:56.421475+00:00